Introduction

The seven third-generation flatted estates with high-and low-rise flats and deck access, along with the houses of non-traditional construction at two estates, form a special case among the 20 estates in terms of the fall and rise of housing quality. They experienced particular problems linked to their design and construction (Chapter 6), and received particularly costly and disruptive improvements (Chapter 7). A wealth of sources have explored the root explanations for the use of these designs in the politics and finance of council housing development, and noted that choices were constrained in most cases by the nature of sites and limited budgets (Burnett 1978; Dunleavy 1981; Glendenning and Muthesias 1994; Power 1993; Malpass 2005; Rowlands et al 2009; Boughton 2018). The responsibility for the choice and success of designs was shared between architects, local authorities, central government's subsidy systems and private companies. These included Wimpey who built the problematic houses at E15 (1946/400/h/NE) and maisonettes at E19 (1936/1,100/fl/NW), and Crudens who built E16 (1971/2,000/deck/L) and E20 (1968/1,000/deck/NW).

This chapter focuses instead on explanations of housing quality after estates had been completed and let. It cannot explore the history of central–local government relations and local government finance in the depth they deserve (Dunleavy 1980; Gyford 1985; Laffin 2009). However, evidence from the 20 estates shows that this is where most of the explanations for the fall and rise of housing quality in the estates (Chapters 6 and 7) can be found.

Funding for planned maintenance, improvement and Redevelopment

For much of estates’ lifetimes, local authorities had the power to maintain and improve their existing homes within rent and subsidy income and what they could borrow. The local authorities which developed the 20 estates had plans, and initially had funds, to carry out cyclical maintenance, for example for renewing kitchens (Chapter 7). However, given pressure of poor quality ‘slum’ housing and the need for new homes, over time English central and local governments both tended to concentrate on and prioritise redeveloping ‘slum’ areas and building new homes. In the early part of estate lifetimes, neither central government nor landlords envisaged or planned for improvements to their homes beyond cyclical maintenance.